“Was Bush right after all?” This was the headline of the British newspaper The Independent last Tuesday. The fact that The Independent devoted its entire front page to the issue is significant because, two years ago, this left-of-center tabloid was the most vociferous opponent of the war to liberate Iraq.
A few days earlier The Guardian, another British left-of-center daily that had campaigned against the liberation of Iraq, offered this musing: “The war was a reckless, provocative, dangerous, lawless piece of unilateral arrogance. But it has nevertheless brought forth a desirable outcome which would not have been achieved at all, or so quickly, by the means that the critics advocated, right though they were in most respects.”
The two British dailies were following a trend set by anti-war newspapers across the Atlantic. “Bush may have got it right!” screamed a headline in the Christian Science Monitor. Newsweek, which had also opposed the war, offered “What Bush Got Right” on its cover.
Similar soul-searching is taking place in French, German and other European media where the idea of liberating Iraq had found few supporters in 2003. Paris’s daily Le Figaro has no qualms in asserting that “Bush was right, and those who wanted Saddam Hussein to remain in power were wrong.” The German weekly Der Spiegel, a ferocious opponent of Bush, finds an even more charming formula: “All can be said in a brief sentence: Bush was right!” Canada’s Toronto Star, another opponent of the Iraq war, admits that, as Bush had predicted, the toppling of Saddam Hussein dealt a death blow to the model of Arab despotism.
Was Bush right in branding Saddam Hussein as a murderous despot who had jailed, oppressed, exiled or killed his people for decades? Was Bush right in saying that without the destruction of the Baathist regime, the people of Iraq would not be able to dream of freedom let alone start building it?
He realized that the status quo that the US had defended in the Middle East for almost 60 years had produced a new and unusual streak of terrorism that poses the most serious threat to American national security.
Bush realized that democratic societies do not allow the formation of religious and ideological swamps in which the deadly mosquitoes of terror breed and multiply. Democracies will never mother an ideology that in turn brings forth Al-Qaeda.
So, where Bush was right was to announce the end of American support for the status quo in the Middle East. This means that the United States, having acted as an opponent of reform in the region, now intends to become the advocate of change. That change of strategy can be taken seriously because it reflects America’s national interests rather than any attachment to democracy as an abstract ideal. Bush’s message is simple: For the US to be safe it is vital that the Middle East become democratic.
Critics of the war to liberate Afghanistan and Iraq should move on. The peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq have spoken, and the Taleban and Saddam Hussein will never return to power. The Independent, The Guardian, and The New York Times may acknowledge, ever so reluctantly, that the end of Saddam Hussein may not have been such a bad idea after all. But they are yet to come out with editorials in support of democratic change in the Middle East. One reason for their reticence may be their refusal to admit that Bush may have been right. What matters, however, is that they should recognize that the people of the Middle East are right in seeking peaceful reform.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=60317&d=12&m=3&y=2005
